Same motive = same killer

[Debra A]

Debra, do you have more info on the vaults being used to sleep in?

Rocky, the reference was in the Star of 3rd Oct. The source is an employee at the Red Lion pub near the building site who had applied for a nightwatchman job there and been turned down. He claimed he saw men entering regularly to sleep in the vaults, he thought:

"The night waterman at the Red Lion public-house in Cannon-row explained to a Star reporter how it was possible for a man to get into the new police buildings at night. He applied to the clerk of the works for the post of night-watchman, and was told that one would not be appointed, but he is about the neighborhood every night until after twelve. He has, he says, frequently seen men going into the buildings at night to sleep - he supposes in the vaults. A large iron pillar stands at the corner of the kerb-stone in Cannon-row just against the hoarding. It is quite easy for anyone to mount on the top of the pillar, and then to

SCALE THE HOARDING.
He has seen several people enter this way. He has never seen any females go over, but a man once in could easily open a door from the inside and admit a female. It would be difficult, although not impossible, to get a heavy parcel over the hoarding at the place to which the waterman referred."

Of course, he could have been making this up because he really wanted that nightwatchman job.

[Fisherman]

Those were the words of a journalist writing for The Lancet.

Further to this, we must of course also add what Baxter said in his summary, relying on what he and the jury had been told by Phillips:

"The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room."

This perfectly mirrors what the Lancet journalist wrote, and so it must be regarded as highly probable that he did a correct job. "Considerable anatomical skill", "knew ... how he should use his knife", "someone accustomed to the post-mortem room"...

It all fits eminently with the Lancet article, and effectively dissolves any notion that Phillips was not much impressed by the level of skill he believed he saw.

[Harry D]

I don't know why the idea of the killer living in the East End but having a bolthole further West is such an unpalatable one. I'm not saying that was definitely the case, but if we're looking for a logical explanation for the one-killer theory, there you have it.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs,

I read that on Wednesday, October 3rd, the day the crane fell into the site, Detective Rose had a team of Detectives in the vault looking for other body parts. There is no mention of dogs. Then in his inquest testimony he mentions bloodhounds and terriers searching before the 17th, so I don't know what to think? Could they (detectives) have brought the bloodhounds in before and after?

Jerry, one newspaper, Lloyd's Weekly of 28 October 1888 has Rose saying in his statement that subsequent to the 17th (and the finding of the leg by Smoker ) he had taken bloodhounds and terriers in for a search.

[Michael W Richards]

Further to this, we must of course also add what Baxter said in his summary, relying on what he and the jury had been told by Phillips:

"The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room."

This perfectly mirrors what the Lancet journalist wrote, and so it must be regarded as highly probable that he did a correct job. "Considerable anatomical skill", "knew ... how he should use his knife", "someone accustomed to the post-mortem room"...

It all fits eminently with the Lancet article, and effectively dissolves any notion that Phillips was not much impressed by the level of skill he believed he saw.

Considering this is from the summation in Annie Chapmans Inquest, and is essentially the stick with which many of the later murderers evident skill sets are measured, one should wonder why the degradation in skills in subsequent murders? Whether you agree with Phillips or Baxter's encapsulation of Phillips thoughts isn't really the main point here, clearly something in the manner in which Annie Chapman was operated on suggested prior experience with both anatomy and knives. It would be hard to conceive that this was the man that a month earlier tried to stab a woman to death with a penknife.

Marrying murders within the Canonical Group is challenging, marrying all of them with murders which bear no real resemblance to the murder of Annie Chapman and committed under unknown circumstances is a leap beyond faith. The murderer that killed women under unknown circumstances, over time disarticulated the bodies, over time dispersed of the remains in various locations, and did so for reasons that are completely unknown to us have only time and geography in common with the murder of Annie Chapman. I keep focused on Annie because she is the ONLY victim that had perhaps surgical grade injuries that were committed specifically to obtain the organ that was eventually taken from the scene. The summation reaffirms that position.

[Sam Flynn]

Further to this, we must of course also add what Baxter said in his summary, relying on what he and the jury had been told by Phillips:

"The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room."

This perfectly mirrors what the Lancet journalist wrote.

There is nothing in Baxter's words that says that it was "obviously the work of an expert... secure the abdominal organs with one sweep of the knife" (for one thing, there was no "one" sweep of the knife, but several cuts). The latter seems to have been a bit of journalistic licence on the Lancet's part.

Licence of a rather kind seems to have been exercised by the non-medically qualified Coroner Wynne Baxter. He was known to be flamboyant and opinionated, and he certainly comes across as melodramatic on several occasions, and he certainly seems to be over-egging things here. Where, for example, did Phillips so much as hint that the killer "must have been... accustomed to the post-mortem room"? Baxter seems to have had a pet theory (the "market" for human organs), and - shamefully - he used Chapman's inquest to trot this out. His views are not to be trusted.

[Sam Flynn]

only time and geography in common with the murder of Annie Chapman.

Time and geography apply only in the loosest sense, Michael.

Good points otherwise, although I'd challenge the degree of skill exhibited in Chapman's murder (e.g. see my post immediately above).

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: There is nothing in Baxter's words that says that it was "obviously the work of an expert... secure the abdominal organs with one sweep of the knife" (for one thing, there was no "one" sweep of the knife, but several cuts). The latter seems to have been a bit of journalistic licence on the Lancet's part.

There is no reason to entertain that thought as Baxters words reveal. Much as Baxter does not use the word "expert", he does speak of somebody "accustomed to the post-mortem room", and I am sure he does not speak about the cleaning lady. Those accustomed to the post-mortem room were the men who performed autopsies, in other words: experts.

You seem to be on a quest, some sort of a crusade, where the aim is to try and make a case for how there was never any skill at all evinced by the Ripper and no recognition of any such skill on behalf of the medicos. All the evidence pointing against your take is mishearing, misrepresentations and misunderstadings.
That is something I believe is misguided and treacherous - very clearly Phillips was quite impressed, very clearly that is mirrored by Baxter and very clearly dabbling with this information is therefore disingeuous.

Licence of a rather kind seems to have been exercised by the non-medically qualified Coroner Wynne Baxter. He was known to be flamboyant and opinionated, and he certainly comes across as melodramatic on several occasions, and he certainly seems to be over-egging things here. Where, for example, did Phillips so much as hint that the killer "must have been... accustomed to the post-mortem room"?

That would be at the inquest.

Baxter seems to have had a pet theory (the "market" for human organs), and - shamefully - he used Chapman's inquest to trot this out. His views are not to be trusted.

That would suit you eminently, I´m sure. But regardless of Baxter´s theory about a market for human organs, he was bound by what Phillips said in his summing up of the inquest. If Phillips had not said that the killer must have been somebody with surgical skill and/or post-mortem room experience, Baxter would not have said what he did. He would have been revealed immediately, and flamboyant though he may have been, he does not come across as a complete idiot to me.

In a sense, it´s unlucky that Baxter mentioned "the american doctor", for if he had not, then I´m sure that people would be less inclined to make the kind of sweeping statements that you do.

[Abby Normal]

I’d take anything the doctors at the time say with a pinch of salt Re the killers medical experience as I sense a hint of professional pride and bias. It might be only natural for them to want to distance themselves and there profession from the work of a serial killer! It’s rather obvious that both series involve some sort of medical skill, and at the very least experience with cutting up bodies.

I tend to go what modern doctors say on the subject since they don’t have the same concerns that a contemporary doctor would have about this, and I believe the modern consensus is that both series display considerable skill. And I agree with that.

[Abby Normal]

I don't know why the idea of the killer living in the East End but having a bolthole further West is such an unpalatable one. I'm not saying that was definitely the case, but if we're looking for a logical explanation for the one-killer theory, there you have it.

bingo Harry
we don't know where the torso man or the ripper lived, worked or had a bolt hole or how many.

but if I had to guess I would say his bolt hole/ murder house was in the west and he lived in the east end as you suggest.

[Sam Flynn]

You seem to be on a quest, some sort of a crusade, where the aim is to try and make a case for how there was never any skill at all evinced by the Ripper and no recognition of any such skill on behalf of the medicos. All the evidence pointing against your take is mishearing, misrepresentations and misunderstadings.

If I'm on a crusade at all, it's one of sticking to the evidence of the wounds, not opinions, summings-up, editorials or 129 years of the "telephone game". Read Phillips' own description of the damage inflicted on Annie Chapman's abdomen, and read carefully what Phillips - not Baxter - actually said at the inquest.

Then, as a fun exercise, read Baxter's summing-up, and ask yourself whether it isn't flowered up and over-dramatised.

[Fisherman]

If I'm on a crusade at all, it's one of sticking to the evidence of the wounds, not opinions, summings-up, editorials or 129 years of the "telephone game". Read Phillips' own description of the damage inflicted on Annie Chapman's abdomen, and read carefully what Phillips - not Baxter - actually said at the inquest.

Then, as a fun exercise, read Baxter's summing-up, and ask yourself whether it isn't flowered up and over-dramatised.

We do not know what Phillips said at the inquest, Gareth. Different papers carry different versions, and they are decidedly meagre when it comes to Phillips´revelations about the damages done. One example would be how the Daily Telegraph says that "I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge."

Here, other papers make it clear that Phillips said that the cutting away of the abdominal flaps evinced "a certain amount of anatomical knowledge", and that the excising of the uterus showed greater such insights.

Some papers simply say something like "Here, Phillips expanded on the damage done".

What Phillips REALLY and FULLY said, is unknown to us. This is perhaps best understood when reflecting on how the East London Advertiser worded it:
"At the inquest on Chapman, Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, under protest, gave the details of the mutilation of the deceased. Of course, as might have been expected, they were almost beyond description, and needless to say they did not find their way into the papers."
So when we see that no papers at all mentioned any post-mortem room experience in their quotations of Phillips´ testimony, that should not be taken as evidence that he did not, for indeed Baxter quoted him on it in his summing up. And Baxter would not have done that if he had not been given reason too, so very clearly Phillips DID speak of knowledge and expertise, and the Lancet is probably the paper best suited to relay what he actually said in the errand.

So no, I don´t think Baxters summary is in any way overdramatized when it comes to the damage done to Chapman. The suggestion of an American doctor asking for certain body parts in return for money has to be viewed in isolation, because here, Baxter was let off the leish.

[Fisherman]

Interesting in this context is the interview with the "eminent physician James Risdon Bennett" of Cavendish Square. This is what he has to say:

"Dr. Phillips has stated that the injuries inflicted upon these women have been apparently performed by a person possessing some anatomical knowledge. That is likely enough; but would not a butcher be quite capable of treating the body in this way? Since I wrote my letter to the Times I have received several communications in support of my view. One of these comes from the Bishop of Bedford, who agrees with me that the theory of the American physiologist has no claim to credit. I wish to have it understood that my only desire is to remove from the public mind the evil impression which has been made by the suggestion, that a member of the medical profession is more or less responsible for these murders. I, however, believed in that theory, and these two last murders confirm me in the opinion that they are the work of a man suffering from acute mania, to whom the ordinary rules of motive and procedure do not apply."

So it seems the view that the murder was the work of a medico or suchlike, was put forward. By whom, one might ask? Phillips? Or the papers only?
It does seem however, that Risdon Bennett "believed in that theory" from the outset, and if it was just a suggestion made in the papers, I find it less likely that he would have done so than if it was suggested by Phillips. It also seems clear that Risdon Bennet opts for how a butcher could have done what Phillips suggested a doctor woul have been resonsible for:
"Dr. Phillips has stated that the injuries inflicted upon these women have been apparently performed by a person possessing some anatomical knowledge. That is likely enough; but would not a butcher be quite capable of treating the body in this way?"
The inference is that Phillips did NOT allow for a butcher but only for a doctor.

[Fisherman]

This is the letter to the Times spoken of in my former post:

"In a letter which he publishes in The Times today, Sir James Risdon Bennett comments upon the statement made by the coroner to the jury at the inquest on the death of the woman Chapman, and refers to the injurious influence which the coroner's theory is likely to exert on the public mind. Sir James says:-

I will, for the sake of argument, assume that the information given to the coroner by the officer of one of the medical schools is correct, and that Dr. Phillips is right in considering that the character of the mutilation in question justifies the assumption that the perpetrator was probably one who possessed some knowledge of anatomy. But that the inference which has been deduced is warranted, any one who is the least acquainted with medical science and practice will unhesitatingly deny and indignantly repudiate. That a lunatic may have desired to obtain possession of certain organs for some insane purpose is very possible, and the theory of the murdering fiend being a madman only derives confirmation from the information obtained by the coroner. But that the parts of the body carried off were wanted for any quasi scientific publication, or any other more or less legitimate purpose, no one having any knowledge of medical science will for a moment believe. To say nothing of the utterly absurd notion of the part, or organ, being preserved in a particular way to accompany each copy of an intended publication, the facilities for obtaining such objects for any purpose of legitimate research, in any number, either here or in America, without having recourse to crime of any kind, are such as to render the suggestion made utterly untenable. There can be no analogy whatever with the atrocious crimes of Burke and Hare, the merest insinuation of which is a gross and unjustifiable calumny on the medical profession.

My guess is that Risdon Bennet is saying here that Phillips stated that the cutting would have taken a certain amount of anatomical knowledge, and that he "deduced the inference" that a medico lay behind it. It is how it reads to me. And it is how it fits with Baxter quoting Phillips and with the Lancets article. So we don´t need to get rid of these things, but can instead accept them as true echoes of Phillips´ stance.

Interestingly, in both murder series we have the exact same thing: a medico (Phillips in the Ripper case and Galloway in the torso case) who blatantly says: surgical expertise!, only to then either be questioned by the profession or to retract what was said. And in both cases we can very clearly see that what inpressed Phillips and Galloway was NOT how the killer emulated exactly what a surgeon would do, for in fact NO surgeon would do what was done. Instead, it was the knifework that made the medicos go "it must have been a surgeon or somebody from the post-mortem room."

[Sam Flynn]

We do not know what Phillips said at the inquest.

Phillips certainly mentioned anatomical knowledge, which Baxter turned into anatomical SKILL in his summing up. Baxter's assertion that the killer must have been accustomed with the dissection room seems to have been conjured out of thin air, and it is perhaps significant that Baxter said this almost as a prelude to trotting out his pet theory that the killer was involved in the black market organ trade.